"(...)Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the Militia of the several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of 75,000, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.(...) I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the force hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property...."
Very clever, Nico, using actual words to make a point. (God! I love that!)
Quote:
I can`t find anything about defending Washington city? But I find a lot which is saying about invading, conquering, submitting Southern states.
It does sound a bit silly to protest about what he said versus what he meant. But that's where I'm going. Lincoln qualified what his call meant in legal language. It remains, in context, that he feared a Confederate raid and takeover. From other sources than his actual words, it is apparent that Lincoln's first reaction was to defend Washington City from a Confederate takeover.
Quote:
They say that South started the war. I disagree. South may gave 'casus belli', but nohting else. It was Lincoln, who by calling volunteers, declared (de facto) war.
It is true that Lincoln declared war by calling for volunteers to defend the capital. Shall we we now turn back to the reason he called for those troops? Hmmmmmm. Something maybe involving firing on the flag?
Let's go back into your history. When did Nazi Germany actually declare war on Poland? Was it more than a few days after the blitzkrieg? Or did Hitler declare that he was of a mind to liberate your depressed millions before he kicked the crap out of your outdated forces?
But that is an aside and irrelevant.
It remains that Lincoln made no overt move against anything southern until Sumter was fired on. That particular action is the focus. Abe could do nothing within his presidential quandary until the shooting started. And Jeff gave him that gift. HoHo. Shots fired!
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Me thinks you yanks give John C. Calhoun too little attention. He was the one stirring the kettle. Those 'behind' him were the folks from the South who brought the mess to a boil, whether 'inspired' by northern attitudes, or not. Slavery and money, mostly money. Aided by an ineffective Congress, the brawl was soon on.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
It does sound a bit silly to protest about what he said versus what he meant. But that's where I'm going. Lincoln qualified what his call meant in legal language. It remains, in context, that he feared a Confederate raid and takeover. From other sources than his actual words, it is apparent that Lincoln's first reaction was to defend Washington City from a Confederate takeover. It is true that Lincoln declared war by calling for volunteers to defend the capital. Shall we we now turn back to the reason he called for those troops? Hmmmmmm. Something maybe involving firing on the flag?
As for invading Washington by rebels. When Lincoln was asking for volunteers Virginia was still in the Union so it would be hard for rebels to attack capital. By asking for volunteers the Union sentiment in upper southern states was destroyed.
Of course I perfectly understand why Lincoln did this all. He had to save and fight for the Union (from his point of view).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
It remains that Lincoln made no overt move against anything southern until Sumter was fired on. That particular action is the focus. Abe could do nothing within his presidential quandary until the shooting started. And Jeff gave him that gift. HoHo. Shots fired!
Still, this gift, was nothing more then 'casus belli'. The same gift which Napoleon III gave Bismarck in 1870. But war was started by Lincoln and Prussia in both cases.
As for overt moves remember Seward saying one thing to Confederate commisioners in DC and Lincoln doing other thing? Southern diplomates and government felt betreyed. Of course Seward was doing this communication on its own, but Davis did not know this.
__________________ Nico, Maréchal d'Empire
Last edited by Nico_Davout; 02-15-2008 at 04:22 AM.
As for invading Washington by rebels. When Lincoln was asking for volunteers Virginia was still in the Union so it would be hard for rebels to attack capital. By asking for volunteers the Union sentiment in upper southern states was destroyed.
Of course I perfectly understand why Lincoln did this all. He had to save and fight for the Union (from his point of view).
Still, this gift, was nothing more then 'casus belli'. The same gift which Napoleon III gave Bismarck in 1870. But war was started by Lincoln and Prussia in both cases.
As for overt moves remember Seward saying one thing to Confederate commisioners in DC and Lincoln doing other thing? Southern diplomates and government felt betreyed. Of course Seward was doing this communication on its own, but Davis did not know this.
You southern idealist are just clueless. The President first duty is defend and protect the Consitution of the United States of America from external and internal threats.
The president has the right call the American people to arms if he feels there is a threat pending and can send troops into harms way or even into combat without the congress's approval, all is Constitutional. Yes, only congress can official declare a war but the president can start one without their approval.
Old Abe did not start a war. He legally call the American people to arms and it was the southern secessionist that were breaking the law and becoming a threat to our Constitution and nation.
Old Abe did his duty as president of the United States fulfilling his first and foremost duty protecting our Constitution for an internal threat.
The president has the right call the American people to arms if he feels there is a threat pending and can send troops into harms way or even into combat without the congress's approval, all is Constitutional. Yes, only congress can official declare a war but the president can start one without their approval.
Almost but not quite right, 5fish. The president's army was small and very much scattered. What sticks in the craw of many is that he, in effect, raised an army which is forbidden in the Constitution. He got around that by asking states for their militias which is not forbidden. That, of course, led to the expected secession of four more states.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Almost but not quite right, 5fish. The president's army was small and very much scattered. What sticks in the craw of many is that he, in effect, raised an army which is forbidden in the Constitution. He got around that by asking states for their militias which is not forbidden. That, of course, led to the expected secession of four more states.
ole
I tried to cover my track by using "call to arms" but no avail.
Old Abe did not start a war. He legally call the American people to arms and it was the southern secessionist that were breaking the law and becoming a threat to our Constitution and nation.
Who was breaking the law? Southern states had right to seceed. "The powers granted bla bla bla (...)." The ties between federal government and each of the states were cut. If Confederacy invade any state which was in the Union, then it would be a threat to Constitiution and nation.
States were sovereign; the federal government was a creation, an agent, a servant of the states. This is what James Madison, the father of the Constitution, cleared up in Federalist Paper 39 when explaining what "the people" meant in the Constitution. So federal government had no right to use force against states in order to keep them in Union.
Lincoln legally called the American people (from northern and border states) to arms to invade, subjugate and conquer free southern states. Not to protect, reclaim, reposses etc. because no one wanted federal government in the southern states anymore.
__________________ Nico, Maréchal d'Empire
Last edited by Nico_Davout; 02-15-2008 at 02:19 PM.
Lincoln legally called the American people (from northern and border states) to arms to invade, subjugate and conquer free southern states. Not to protect, reclaim, reposses etc. because no one wanted federal government in the southern states anymore.
That is a tempting post, Nico, but this is not the thread to pick up the gauntlet. How about reopening the "Was Secession Legal" thread?
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I will have to say that Shelby Foote (Historian) view of the lack of compromise had a lot to do with the Civil War.
I don't think President Lincoln had much choice, as he was sworn to an Constitutional oath as all Presidents past have sworn to do--as well as President George Washington.
Calling up for volunteers as to create an Army is not the automatic assumption that such action is declaring war. Sometimes it is just a 'show' of force which is enough. However, firing on an established US Fort just went beyond any point of further cooperation and or hopes to 'communicate/compromise' and most of all -- a means to permit those who wished to remain Union and those who wished to be on the Confederate side--a chance to settle their affairs and peacefully go to their new and safer lines. For those times, any 'incident' which offended honor, civil conduct was no different from slapping a person's face with the glove and a challenge to a dual.
The formation of an Army, to my understanding was rather small pre-Civil War; for the securing of the boarders; is not automaticly a signal that they would invade the neighboring states. Yet, like any other periods in history--there will be a perception created and 'sold' as to become a joint cause.
I personally feel politicians and those who are in constant need for attention (which I call attention vampires)--create focus on themselves and create problems in order to 'fix' them. The added question would be in the area of all the 'what ifs.' Could there have been a 'redistricting' as to be much like Canada/Quebec; could there have been other things explored. What I have seen, are men with passion and the immediate in a political position--but, don't see the larger picture. Certainly, I think the South didn't plan this split well. I would have stocked up on supplies and have a more orderly plan in place before I'd split.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
(...)." The ties between federal government and each of the states were cut. If Confederacy invade any state which was in the Union, then it would be a threat to Constitiution and nation.
Linear Mode
